sac_list_resources

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It omits behavioral details such as pagination behavior (top/skip parameters exist but not explained), auth requirements, rate limits, or read-only nature. The agent lacks critical context for safe invocation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single well-structured sentence with no extraneous words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and filtering options.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, the description should clarify the return format or structure, but it does not. Important aspects like pagination limits, default behavior, and error conditions are absent. The description is incomplete for a parameterized listing tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, with clear parameter descriptions for top, skip, parentId, and resourceType. The description adds minimal value by reiterating filter capabilities already expressed in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool lists content resources (stories, models, folders) in the SAC tenant, with filtering by type or parent folder. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that list specific resource types (e.g., sac_list_stories, sac_list_models).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies use when listing resources with optional filters, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over more specific sibling tools like sac_list_stories or sac_list_models. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.